Posted - 2012.05.14 14:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, I read this quote in another thread over at EVE general discussion, and it got me thinking:

Fatbear wrote:

Players are like electricity - will always take the path of least resistance. So many game mechanics and tools have been put in place to avoid resistance, it's becoming stagnant of its own making.

Well said.

Titan bridges, jump bridges, jump freighters, carriers, rorquals, cloaky haulers, warp to 0km, interdiction nullifiers, etc, etc, it all serves to do one thing - making EVE a smaller game. Not to mention the fact that null-sec is becoming so crowded with outposts and stations it is starting to look more and more like high-sec. My suggestions to fix this:

Make player built stations and outposts destructible.

And I don't mean "incapacitated". I mean completely destructible, as in a big explosion and all that is left is a salvager's wet dream. The list of benefits of such a change is pretty long.

It would make null-sec wars more meaningful.

It would increase conflict in null-sec as alliances would seek to destroy each other's stations.

It would reduce the current station clutter, and make null-sec more dangerous again.

It would mean less hoarding of assets in one station, and therefore more travel between empire and null-sec.

It would make for some EPIC explosions and even more EPIC drama.

It would also open the way for some cool new features, such as manned turrets on stations, that can only be operated from a "Captains Quarters" like room, where you look out on the battle-field and shoot at ships in space, defensive and offensive station upgrades, a station self-destruct button that would be the EPIC culmination of a spy's career, etc.

Increase risk and fuel cost of titan bridging / jump bridges

I know the poor titan pilots have been nerfed one time after another. I'm not out to get them with this. I swear. But as it is now, it is way too cheap and convenient, and with titans it can be done from safety inside a POS. I don't know what the exact number would be, but an increase in the titans fuel bay and a simultaneous increase in the amount of fuel required for each ship to jump would help null-sec alliances spend some of all that cash.

With regards to risk, I think the titan jumpbridge should only work outside the POS shields. No more sneaky bridging of freighters and small gangs. The titan is a fleet ship and with this change it would require a proper fleet to support it when it is bridging.

Additionally, the POS anchored jump-bridges need to have their HP massively reduced. CCP introduced modules such as the cyno-jammer, jump-bridge and cyno-generator as a feature to encourage smaller PVP operations, but then gave them so much HP you still need a large fleet to take them down. Reducing the amount of HP would benefit small-scale PVP in null-sec and would make it more dangerous for null-sec alliances to rely on their jumpbridges.

Stargate upgrades - no more warp to zero

This one is real simple. In the old days of EVE you could only warp to within 15 km of any object in space. Warp to 0 simply didn't exist. It was a way to avoid bumping into things and it made travel in low- and null-sec far more dangerous. I propose that not all stargates should be equal. Some should accept warp to 0, other's warp to 5, 10 and 15.

Won't everyone immediately start making bookmarks then? Yes, but not nearly as many as before. Now that we have corp bookmarks, there's no need for every individual in a corporation to have insta-warp bookmarks. It would also open the way for a stargate upgrade feature for null-sec systems. Alliances could upgrade their stargates so their own pilots can warp to 0, while enemy pilots would still have to warp to 5, 10, or 15.

Agreed. However, only on the condition that the following are met. - Stations gain some kind of automated defence like station guns.- It needs to be very very difficult and very very time consuming to destroy them. - At the moment nullsec alliances rely quite heavily on minerals, mods, ships etc being shipped in from empire. Nullsec needs to be more independent before changes like this are made.

Increase risk and fuel cost of titan bridging / jump bridges

Agreed in its entirety.

Stargate upgrades - no more warp to zero

I've never had to live in Eve without warp to 0. My initial thought is to not support this idea. Although I need to think through the implications more thoroughly.

No thanks, why would I want to waste even more time travelling (time I'm paying for) than I do already. I can do anywhere up to or over 30 jumps of an evening if the LowSec or HiSec entry that allows me to access the wormspace I live in collapses and even in a fast ship thats a drag, try it in a freighter or Orca. Then let us not forget the 100 jump roams that I used to go on in 0.0, warp to 15 would I'm fairly sure drop numbers on such events.

Posted - 2012.05.15 21:56:00 -
[4] - QuoteBringing back warp-to-zero is not pragmatic. In the past, people created huge sets of bookmarks that essentially enabled them to "warp to zero". They will do so again...

And trying to remove bookmarks will cause many, many issues, especially given the dangers of traveling in nullsec (warp bubbles).

What is your goal? To force people to use gate travel when flying freighters? To make hotdrops something expensive enough that people don't do it casually?

I don't think either of these will be changed without a significant increase in titan bridge costs!!! It already costs 2ish mil to bridge an obelisk. Do you really think you'll limit their bridging by increasing it to 20m? Especially if it's carrying 10b in moongoo?

Even at 2m a BS, people will easily JP large gangs of BS's to a fight, becuase it saves time and is a much safer mode of travel.

As for jump portals, pos cyno's, cyno jammers, etc... Anything located at a (deathstar) POS is NOT something a small roaming gang can typically take on!!!! Those are pretty much Sov Level upgrades, and as such, require sov-level ops to take on. Rather than make them easily destructable, I'd double or Quadruple their EHP... and move them to the IHUB.

What is your goal? To force people to use gate travel when flying freighters? To make hotdrops something expensive enough that people don't do it casually?

The increased cost would function as an ISK sink for larger alliances. I think it should cost a significant enough amount that you do not casually bridge people here and there, just to save a few jumps. Especially with POS jump bridges, they should be tactical tools to move fast in PVP situations, not a cushion that allows null-sec residents to never have to face the risk of going near a stargate.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't think either of these will be changed without a significant increase in titan bridge costs!!! It already costs 2ish mil to bridge an obelisk. Do you really think you'll limit their bridging by increasing it to 20m? Especially if it's carrying 10b in moongoo?

Even at 2m a BS, people will easily JP large gangs of BS's to a fight, becuase it saves time and is a much safer mode of travel.

Again, the aim is to make bridging less of a convenience and more of a strategic tool. I can't say here what the exact cost should be. I agree that even if it costs 50m people would likely still bridge freighters, but they wouldn't do it as casually as it's done now. There'd have to be a real strategic need for that freighter to be moved in such a fashion.

Also, the increased risk of only being able to bridge from outside the POS shields would put an end to these bare low-sec towers with bridging titans moving freighters. People would as a minimum have to put up a proper POS, and would likely need to put some support together before attempting logistical bridges.

Finally, it would give the jump freighter a boost for its role in EVE. Currently it's being ignored by the alliances that have titan logistic capability, simply because it's more cost efficient to move a regular freighter that can hold twice as much in the cargo hold.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

As for jump portals, pos cyno's, cyno jammers, etc... Anything located at a (deathstar) POS is NOT something a small roaming gang can typically take on!!!! Those are pretty much Sov Level upgrades, and as such, require sov-level ops to take on. Rather than make them easily destructable, I'd double or Quadruple their EHP... and move them to the IHUB.

The problem with that is that once jump bridges are no longer near a POS shield you will have much less use for them, considering the risk of jumping into a system without knowing what's on the other end. A reduction in HP would allow a relatively small fleet with range and logi support to successfully incapacitate the bridge, even if they're taking non-focused turret fire. The cyno-jammer can stay the way it is, it's the bridge and the generator that are making EVE smaller ;-)

Posted - 2012.05.17 12:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm not sure what people's obsession with going backwards is. All you really seem to be suggesting is slow EVE down to a crawl so that I can shoot more people at gate camps.

Posted - 2012.05.17 14:26:00 -
[9] - Quote
Instant force projection is a bit of a problem as I understand it. I'm not against the ability to sling your ships across the region at a moment's notice, but I agree it's too cheap/easy and needs to be made more challenging. As it stands, surprise has very little value in warfare when the enemy can respond in a matter of minutes, assuming their pilots are online.

Taking away warp-to-zero will just make nullsec less navigable and more tedious than it is today. You won't be making Eve "bigger", you'll just be slowing down transit and making it easier for people to lose ships to mindless smash-everything gate camps.It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you.

Posted - 2012.05.17 15:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
I was under the impression titans already couldn't use their jump bridges inside a POS shield. As far as I know they just stick their head out of the shield to activate the module, but they're still vulnerable during that time as the ship is not considered inside the shield.

Perhaps make it impossible to activate the bridge module within a certain number of kilometers from a nearby POS shield, if possible.

I was under the impression titans already couldn't use their jump bridges inside a POS shield. As far as I know they just stick their head out of the shield to activate the module, but they're still vulnerable during that time as the ship is not considered inside the shield.

Perhaps make it impossible to activate the bridge module within a certain number of kilometers from a nearby POS shield, if possible.

Titans CAN and typically DO bridge people from INSIDE the POS shields....

Posted - 2012.05.17 17:30:00 -
[14] - QuoteTo be honest, now that there is only one JB allowed per system, I find the JB network much less problematic. This, tied in with the fact a warp bubble can pull a ship 500+ kms away from their warp destination (i.e. out of POS gun range), makes them vulnerable enough that I'm alright with their current use.

I wouldn't mind altering cyno generators, such that they can be easily disabled by a small gang. I think this would allow the disruption of logistics chains by Guerilla entities feasible... and could severely hinder force projection! The problem is, engaging anything on a deathstar POS is not easily accomplished by a "small" (<10) gang. Perhaps if you increased the POS lock times by about 20%, it would be much more reasonable. In my experience, while the lock times of a POS are slow, they aren't consistent, and that's problematic.

Titan bridging is pretty much the main use of a titan unless you have many of them. Forcing titan's to bridge from outside of the POS shields is pretty much a nerf to smaller alliances, which cannot truly protect a titan. Encouraging titan's to be a large-alliance tool only might sound good, but then you're pretty much solidifying powerblocs, and making it unncessarily harder on the smaller entities which are already disadvataged. A much more balanced solution would be to change the hotdrop mechanics, and I don't think cost is quite the right approach (although its not a bad idea, per se).

Other Hot drop alterations might include: Cyno Spool-up timers -- such that people have time to react and attack a cyno ship. Death to all ships en route if the destination cyno is destroyed before you load grid. Special bridging cynos -- New modules needed for bridging, which can only be fit to certain classes of ships. Reduced Bridge Range -- Reduce the range of bridging from 7 ly to 3 ly's or some such nonsense.

Really, significantly reducing the range and creating a longer -- time to load grid -- period is all that's really needed.

Posted - 2012.05.17 17:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Nah. JBs are well-known for allowing large alliances to project power over vast distances within 30 minutes, so might as well do the job properly and remove them altogether. Same goes for titan bridges and jump drives, way too easy to project power and haul goods, it's time we got CCP to make the universe feel big again.

Posted - 2012.05.18 19:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
I think you are confusing force projection with a feeling of "it's a small world." The EVE universe is actually a very very big place if you wander off the main trade routes and go exploring systems. Most of your suggestions seem geared towards slowing down the ability to project power and not to increase the perceived size of the universe.

I completely agree that if it can be built it should be able to be destroyed.

I have actually advocated for cyno spool up in the past and I do still feel it is a very necessary tool to not make hot dropping a less immediate thing. I'm also not particularly opposed to modifying the use of Jump bridges - maybe adding a mass dependent spool up time on these as well.

Increasing the cost of jumping ships via jump bridge/titan bridge will just be passed onto the consumer of all moon goo products as the price to fight for and hold the good moons just got more expensive.

Removing warp to 0 will just make things slower and probably lead to more JB networks in null sec not less as the time to mobilize a force, basically autopilot to the target system, engage the target, and return will be prohibitvly time consuming for the casual player. Most sov grinds already take hours of being on grid not counting the time it takes to actually form the fleet and transit. I think it will just lead to a more stagnant null sec tbh (which is what the op seems most concerned about).

I think you are confusing force projection with a feeling of "it's a small world." The EVE universe is actually a very very big place if you wander off the main trade routes and go exploring systems. Most of your suggestions seem geared towards slowing down the ability to project power and not to increase the perceived size of the universe.

I do, and I don't. You are right that my proposals have major force projection impacts, but it's neither "small world" or force projection that motivated my suggestions, but rather that I think EVE is getting too easy. More and more tools are being introduced that allows for faster travel, remote interaction with and management of assets and overall more safety for your internet spaceships. As a result PVP is becoming this organized event that mostly happens when two sides have assembled fleets and meet on some field of battle (or the occasional gank at a gate camp), rather than a constant threat of living in outlaw space.

I would like to see more dynamic and random PVP, more conflict in EVE in general, and I think the way to achieve some of those could be restricting the tools of risk free travel. I'd love to see people assembling fleets to actually escort their freighters in and out of null-sec, rather than just a quick push of a button. I'd like to see the main traffic pipes to null-sec hot spots being constantly contested by roaming gangs, while the main alliances attempt to police them.

I'm not saying that warp to 0 or higher jump bridge costs are the only solutions. These are merely some of my suggestions. As you will note I didn't say that all gates should be warp to 15, but a more dynamic system. I imagine in empire the gates would all be modern and well tended to, so they'd mostly be warp to 0, while in low-sec and null-sec it would be up to the player alliances to make sure that they have warp to 0 capability. When you get outside the main pipes that are upgraded by players, stargates in less populated areas might have warp to 5, 10 or 15.

The benefit of that would be that you would have "more dangerous" areas in space where dynamic PVP could evolve.

What is your goal? To force people to use gate travel when flying freighters? To make hotdrops something expensive enough that people don't do it casually?

The increased cost would function as an ISK sink for larger alliances. I think it should cost a significant enough amount that you do not casually bridge people here and there, just to save a few jumps. Especially with POS jump bridges, they should be tactical tools to move fast in PVP situations, not a cushion that allows null-sec residents to never have to face the risk of going near a stargate.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't think either of these will be changed without a significant increase in titan bridge costs!!! It already costs 2ish mil to bridge an obelisk. Do you really think you'll limit their bridging by increasing it to 20m? Especially if it's carrying 10b in moongoo?

Even at 2m a BS, people will easily JP large gangs of BS's to a fight, becuase it saves time and is a much safer mode of travel.

Again, the aim is to make bridging less of a convenience and more of a strategic tool. I can't say here what the exact cost should be. I agree that even if it costs 50m people would likely still bridge freighters, but they wouldn't do it as casually as it's done now. There'd have to be a real strategic need for that freighter to be moved in such a fashion.

Also, the increased risk of only being able to bridge from outside the POS shields would put an end to these bare low-sec towers with bridging titans moving freighters. People would as a minimum have to put up a proper POS, and would likely need to put some support together before attempting logistical bridges.

Finally, it would give the jump freighter a boost for its role in EVE. Currently it's being ignored by the alliances that have titan logistic capability, simply because it's more cost efficient to move a regular freighter that can hold twice as much in the cargo hold.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

As for jump portals, pos cyno's, cyno jammers, etc... Anything located at a (deathstar) POS is NOT something a small roaming gang can typically take on!!!! Those are pretty much Sov Level upgrades, and as such, require sov-level ops to take on. Rather than make them easily destructable, I'd double or Quadruple their EHP... and move them to the IHUB.

The problem with that is that once jump bridges are no longer near a POS shield you will have much less use for them, considering the risk of jumping into a system without knowing what's on the other end. A reduction in HP would allow a relatively small fleet with range and logi support to successfully incapacitate the bridge, even if they're taking non-focused turret fire. The cyno-jammer can stay the way it is, it's the bridge and the generator that are making EVE smaller ;-)

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.